Talmud Ha-Igud

edited by

Shamma Friedman

BT BERAKHOTCHAPTER VI

With Comprehensive Commentary

by

Moshe Benovitz

The Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud

Jerusalem 2015

talmud@netvision.net.il

www.TalmudHa-Igud.org.il

ZShoah Memorial

JfCB]KrIfR+QeP#N̂G&FK̂M#N̂j+NĉC@Z@KGâP]r̂o@J

j]KN̂TfN@ON‘BK]lfJN̂H+M&ZTfN@OK]F̂K&FX#c]KY

This volume commemorates Rabbi Dr. Siegfried Behrens (1876–1942) who wasborn in Rethem, Germany in 1876. In the beginning of the 20th century,Beherens was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau and in1901 received his PhD from the University of Breslau. The topic of hisdissertation was: "A Critical Edition of Maimonides Commentary on MishnaTractate Megilla with Ibn Fawwal’s Translation.

Beginning in 1908, Behrens served as rabbi in Göttingen, and in 1922 wasappointed as the district rabbi of Fürth. During these years, he helped foundthe Fürth Historical Society, still active today, and published a series ofmonographs on the concept of Jewish martyrdom in various German languagejournals. Beherns also published a series of articles in the German liberalmovement’s periodical pertaining to the movements relationship to Ortho-doxy (1921), Zionism (1922) and the preservation of Judaism (1928).

In March of 1942, Rabbi Dr. Behrens was sent, together with his wife Ida andhis daughter Margot, to the Izbica ghetto, where they were murdered, mostlikely during November of that year.

KFKHMZGCZGL

This volume is lovingly dedicated to Leah and Harry Cabakoff, may they rest in

peace, who lived quiet lives of simplicity, humility and dignity. Though their lives

were marked by struggle and hard work, they managed to reserve significant portions

for what they held most dear, Torah values and Talmudic scholarship.

These volumes, in which scholars immerse themselves in an ambitious project to

apply the disciplines of academic scholarship to the Talmud Bavli, extend and

perhaps deepen Talmudic inquiry begun more than 1,000 years ago. Yet, their work

springs from the same source that informed the lives of the Cabakoffs: the love of

learning.

Thus, it is fitting to dedicate such volumes to the Cabakoffs, born in Russia, who

married and started a family there but were forced to flee its persecutions and

pogroms. Forced to uproot their lives and seek refuge elsewhere, they arrived on

American shores just after the turn of the 20th Century to settle in Columbus, Ohio.

There they would remain and there raise their children. There they would join

Agudas Achim Synagogue, the city’s Orthodox shul, and remain active for a lifetime.

Herschel Cabakoff rarely let a day go by without immersing himself in Talmud

study. Talmudic study was at the core of his life and his value system. Leah Cabakoff

also liked to study about Torah, about Judaism and its practice and pass the lessons

she learned to her children.

One of them, daughter Bella, married Harry Wexner, himself a Russian émigré.

Late in life they embarked on a business venture, starting a small women’s clothing

store in Columbus, a family business that would eventually include their children.

After years of devotion to their business, enormous perseverance and unrelenting

hard work, they achieved late in life their dream of creating one of the major retail

conglomerates in the world.

This success made possible the funding to perpetuate the legacies of scholarship,

historical inquiry and research that meant so much to both of them and which they

hoped to inspire in future generations. In order to carry forth their legacies, a

foundation was established to continue the work they had begun in their lifetimes, the

Legacy Heritage Fund of New York and Jerusalem. The generous support of Legacy

Heritage Fund made this volume possible.

Eventually, these volumes exploring the teachings of ancient scholarship through

the lens of modern scholarship, will do more than promote learning. In marrying the

ancient and medieval to the modern they will reach farther than their forefathers ever

dreamed possible – by arraying their scholarship on the Internet and giving access to

it to all the world.

In this way, the old will inspire the young as the old inspires the new, breathing

life into the words that drove the Cabakoffs, the Wexners and their forebearers and

which drives Legacy Heritage Fund to carry forth their yearnings and aspirations:

‘‘The light of the past will illuminate the future.’’

Table of Contents

English Preface vii

English Abstracts ix

Sugya 1: ‘‘Hillulim’’ (35a) 3

Sugya 2: ‘‘This World’’ (35a-b) 33

Sugya 3: ‘‘Wine’’ (35b) 59

Sugya 4: ‘‘Olive Oil’’ (35b-36a) 79

Sugya 5: ‘‘Flour’’ (36a) 89

Sugya 6: ‘‘Palm Fiber’’ (36a) 103

Sugya 7: ‘‘Caper’’ (36a-b) 115

Sugya 8: ‘‘Peppercorns’’ (36b) 137

Sugya 9: ‘‘Porridge’’ (36b) 143

Sugya 10: ‘‘Mezonot (36b-37a)’’ 153

Sugya 11: ‘‘Wheat’’ (37a) 175

Sugya 12: ‘‘Rice’’ (37a-b) 183

Sugya 13: ‘‘Gruel’’ (37b) 191

Sugya 14: ‘‘Breadcrumbs’’ (37b) 197

Sugya 15: ‘‘Griddle Bread’’ (37b-38a) 219

Sugya 16: ‘‘Date Syrup’’ (38a) 241

Sugya 17: ‘‘Shatita’’ (38a) 253

Sugya 18: ‘‘Motzi’’ (38a-b) 265

Sugya 19: ‘‘Cooked–down Vegetables’’ (38b-39a) 279

Sugya 20: ‘‘Dried Bread’’ (39a-b) 319

Sugya 21: ‘‘Breaking Bread’’ (39b) 333

Sugya 22: ‘‘Take and Bless’’ (40a) 355

Sugya 23: ‘‘Rava bar Samuel in the name of Rabbi Hiyya’’ (40a) 367

Sugya 24: ‘‘Bore Mine Desha’im’’ (40a) 381

Sugya 25: ‘‘Root’’ (40a) 391

Sugya 26: ‘‘Wheat is a Type of Tree’’ (40a-b) 399

Sugya 27: ‘‘Formulation’’ (40b) 409

Sugya 28: ‘‘Name and Kingship’’ (40b) 425

Sugya 29: ‘‘Truffles and Mushrooms’’ (40b) 435

Sugya 30: ‘‘Novelot’’ (40b-41a) 445

Sugya 31: ‘‘Many Species’’ (41a-b) 459

Sugya 32: ‘‘The Meal’’ (41b-42a) 477

Sugya 33: ‘‘Wine before the Meal’’ (42a-b) 499

Sugya 34: ‘‘Cooked Grain’’ (42b) 517

Sugya 35: ‘‘Let us Go and Eat’’ (42b-43a) 525

Sugya 36: ‘‘Reclining’’ (43a) 535

Sugya 37: ‘‘Wine in the Course of the Meal’’ (43a) 553

Sugya 38: ‘‘Called upon to Recite Grace’’ (43a) 559

Sugya 39: ‘‘Spices’’ (43a-b) 571

Sugya 40: ‘‘Rav Zutra bar Tuviah in the name of Rav’’ (43b) 589

Sugya 41: ‘‘Perfuming’’ (43b) 597

Sugya 42: ‘‘The Fruits of the Sea of Galilee’’ (44a) 615

Sugya 43: ‘‘A Single Blessing as an Abridgement of Three’’ (44a) 629

Sugya 44: ‘‘Bore Nefashot’’ (44b) 641

Sugya 45: ‘‘Vegetable’’ (44b) 651

Sugya 46: ‘‘Thirst’’ (44b-45a) 663

Sugya 47: ‘‘Rabbi Tarfon’’ (45a) 667

Indices 671

Talmud Ha-Igud series

The following books have been published

Berakhot Chapter One, with commentary by Moshe Benovitz, 2006

Shabbat Chapter Seven, with commentary by Steven G. Wald, 2007

Eruvin Chapter Ten, with commentary by Aviad A. Stollman, 2008

Pesahim Chapter Four, with commentary by Aaron Amit, 2009

Sanhedrin Chapter Five, with commentary by Netanel Ba’adani, 2012

Sukkah Chapter Four & Five, with commentary by Moshe Benovitz, 2013

Editor’s Preface

This volume is the eighth publication by the Society for the Interpretation of the

Talmud. It was preceded by Five Sugyot, Jerusalem 2002, and six volumes withcommentary on seven chapters of the Babylonian Talmud, as detailed on the

preceding page.

Five Sugyot presented samples of the work of five scholars by presentingcommentary on one sugya from each of five chapters of the Talmud researched and

explicated by these authors, in anticipation of the publication of these works in their

entirety by the Society. Three of the above–mentioned volumes represent the

fulfillment by those authors of this aim.

It is hoped that this first series will soon be further augmented to include a total of

twenty volumes, representing the first phase of the Society’s work, namely, original

commentary on chapters of the Babylonian Talmud devoted to the methodological

goals formulated in the introduction to Five Sugyot. Scheduled to appear among thesevolumes areGittin IX by Shamma Friedman,Makkot III by Tamas Turan,Gittin IV byYair Furstenburg, Sukka III by Avraham Schiff,Gittin V by David Zafrani. Berakhot VIby Moshe Benovitz appears in this volume.

At the same time we intend to broaden our horizons to publication of commentary

on entire tractates.

The Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud was founded in 1993 with the goal

of composing and publishing Talmudic commentary fulfilling the demands of an

historical–philological discipline and at the same time authentically integrated with

traditional Talmud studies. This determination was a direct outgrowth of earlier work

done by the founders of the Society, and their fervent devotion to an intellectual

approach which combines academic textual and literary disciplines with their desire

to elucidate halakhic institutions and rabbinic thought according to their simple

meaning and historical development. Applying this method to each sugya

consecutively, we hope to produce the first attempt at a contemporary edition of

the Talmud with commentary meeting scholarly standards and addressing the

intellectual climate in which we function.

The participants have joined together in this extensive project after several of them

had already composed and published commentary on chapters of the Talmud.1 The

first phase of the Society’s work included determining procedures and guidelines, and

composing the first group of commentaries. Now, as we continue to publish these first

fruits, we wish to express our satisfaction and gratitude for what has been achieved,

and redouble our dedication to continuing the task.

The Society’s unique format includes separating the chapter into discrete sugyotwhich are numbered and named, and assigning distinguishable type–faces to each of

the major formal building blocks of the sugya: dicta of Tannaim, Amoraim, and the

anonymous editorial voice.

The Society’s website www.TalmudHa–Igud.org.il presents updates on progress,

information on how to acquire volumes, together with synopses of variant readings,

Editor’s comments, and background material associated with present and future

volumes.

1 S. Friedman, Talmud Arukh, BT Bava Metzi’a VI: Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary,Commentary Volume, Jerusalem, 1990; Text Volume and Introduction, 1996. S.G. Wald, BT Pesahim III,Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary, New York and Jerusalem 2000. M. Benovitz, BT Shevuot III,Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary, New York and Jerusalem 2003.

vii

Our indebtedness to learned scholars of past generations is expressed in our

volumes through a page in memory of scholars who perished in the holocaust. May

their memory be for a blessing.

Publication of this volume has been made possible through the generous

assistance of Legacy Heritage Fund (Keren Morasha) of New York and Jerusalem.

By lending its crucial support, and especially through its expression of confidence in

our work, the Legacy Heritage Fund has given immeasurable encouragement in our

striving to fulfill this historic mission.

The creation of the Igud, and the initial realization of its mission would also not

have become a reality without the dedicated friendship and support extended by

individuals and institutions, whose participation and partnership in this great vision

we hold dear. Full expression of our indebtedness and gratitude are beyond what I

can articulate here. None the less, the publication of this significant volume is a most

pleasant opportunity to express a small part of our appreciation to the following:

Ethan and Tamar Benovitz

David and Susan Goldsmith

Alex and Vera H"N Hornstein

The Jeselsohn family: ’’In memory of Shimon (Sigmund) and Lina Jeselsohn T"F

who lovingly trained us in the heritage of German Jewry, and instilled in us the

spiritual values of ’Torah and Derech Eretz’’’.

Keren Keshet, and its Director, Arthur W. Fried, Esq.

Hartley Koschitzky

Jonathan Koschitzky

Rabbi Benjamin W. and Marion Roth

Samuel H"N and Evelyn Schechter

David and Ina Tropper

Anonymous

We are grateful to Mordechai Cohen for the production of this volume, and to Dan

Halevi for copy–editing.

May they all enjoy the fruits of our combined labors.

S.F.

Jerusalem

Shevat 5775 / February 2015

viii

English Abstract

Sugya 1: ‘‘Hillulim’’

This sugya opens with a tannaitic midrash, according to which the obligation torecite a blessing before and after eating is derived from the word hillulim, ‘‘praises’’, inLeviticus 19:24. Although this verse concerns the fruits of trees during the fourth year

after they are planted, which are deemed ‘‘sacred for praises to the Lord’’, Rabbi

Akiva is said to have derived from this verse that no one may taste any food without

first praising God. The sugya then proceeds with a lengthy dialectic challenging thisderivation of the obligation to recite the blessing before food from Scripture. The

editor of the sugya shows that the word hillulim is used to derive other halakhot, whichwould preclude the derivation of an obligation to recite blessings from this same

word; moreover, the context refers according to some tannaim to grapes of the fourthyear only, and according to others to other fruit as well, but even with various

exegetical enhancements the context could hardly justify an obligation to recite a

blessing before foodstuffs such as meat, eggs and fish. The sugya therefore concludesthat the obligation to recite a blessing before eating is not derived from Leviticus 19:24

or any other biblical verse, but rather is a grounded in the notion that it is forbidden to

derive benefit from God’s earth without first acknowledging God.

The views of tannaim and amoraim cited in the sugya are largely unknown fromother contexts, and it can be shown that they are in effect creations of the author of our

sugya, who built upon parallel material and greatly expanded its meaning and

significance. For example, although some tannaim refer to the law of the fruits of thefourth year as kerem reva’i, ‘‘the four–year–old vineyard’’, rather than neta’ reva’i, ‘‘thefour–year–old planting’’, there is no real tannaitic view limiting the law of the fruits of

the fourth year to grapes, though this is a central motif in the sugya. The author of oursugya was troubled by the notion expressed by Rabbi Akiva in the midrash, since itchallenged the conventional wisdom, based on Mishnah Berakhot 3:7, that the

blessings before food have the status of rabbinic legislation rather than scriptural law.

In a beautifully designed sugya he divides the sages into three camps, based on theirsupposed views regarding various rulings concerning the fruits of the fourth year

(largely his own creations), and proceeds to show how none of these views are

compatible with the notion that Leviticus 19:24 is the source of the obligation to recite

a blessing before food – both because most sages would have need of the word

hillulim in that verse to derive other rulings, and because all sages would limit thefoodstuffs referred to in that verse to grapes, or grapes and related produce, or

produce in general. He thus justifies his conclusion that blessings before food are not

mandated by Scripture, but are rather grounded in the rabbinic notion that deriving

benefit from God’s earth without first acknowledging him is unethical.

Sugya 2: ‘‘This World’’

The previous sugya concluded that blessings before food were ordained by therabbis in accordance with the notion that the earth belongs to the Lord, and therefore

those deriving benefit from the earth must first acknowledge him. This sugya openswith a baraita that teaches that very lesson: deriving benefit from the earth withoutacknowledging God is tantamount to sacrilege: deriving illicit benefit from Temple

ix

property. The baraita concludes with a curious statement according to which omissionof a blessing can be corrected by approaching a sage. Rava reinterprets this to mean

that one should study the correct blessings over food with a sage in order to avoid

sacrilege. Amoraic statements follow deriving the notion of the divine ownership of

the earth from Scripture; the last of these contrasts Hosea 2:11, according to which the

grain of the earth belongs to God, with Deuteronomy 11:14, a verse which promises

those who obey God: ‘‘you will gather in your grain’’; the former is said to refer toproduce before the blessing on it is recited and the latter to food over which a blessing

has been pronounced, releasing it to human ownership. This is followed by a baraitacontrasting the above–cited verse, Deuteronomy 11:14, which assumes that righteous

people gather in their grain with Joshua 1:8, according to which the righteous are

urged to study Torah day and night. Two approaches are cited and discussed by

amoraim: that of Rabbi Yishmael, who suggests that there is time for both field workand Torah study, and that of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, who believes that when Israel

truly obeys God’s will, Torah study is a full–time endeavor and righteous Jews are

supported by others, namely Gentiles. It is only when Israel does not truly obey God’s

will that Israelites are said to gather in their crops. The sugya ends with amoraicstatements supporting a pragmatic approach to the question of Torah study and

livelihood.

Among the issues discussed in the analysis is the suggestion at the beginning of

the sugya that a sage could retroactively dissolve the sin of omitting a blessing, just ashe can dissolve a vow. It is shown that this suggestion is rooted in an understanding

of the dissolution of vows that is also found in the works of the first century Jewish

Alexandrian sage Philo, according to which Temple treasurers and their agents, local

community leaders, were in fact in a position to release Temple property for human

consumption when they deemed it unnecessary for Temple use. Taking seriously the

notion of divine ownership of all property, one could conceivably have applied this

notion to the retroactive dispensation with the necessity of reciting a blessing before

consuming God’s food. However, this notion is rejected by the Talmud; the notion of

divine ownership of all property as a rationale for blessing is considered

metaphorical, not actual, and the sage’s only role would be to teach one the proper

blessings before a sin of omission is incurred.

Another issue discussed at length in the commentary is the dispute between Rabbi

Yishmael and Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, which is contrasted with a similar dispute in

Bavli Menahot 99b, in which the positions of the two sages seem to be reversed: Rabbi

Yishmael is said to have urged his nephew to study full time, and Rabbi Simeon bar

Yohai is said to have limited the obligation to study Torah to mere recitation of the

Shema twice daily. It is shown that this reversal is the work of amoraim, whoattempted to forge a compromise position according to which a cadre of scholars,

devoted to full–time study, is to be supported by the common Jews, who work for a

living and fulfill their obligation to study by merely reciting the Shema twice daily.This position was ascribed to both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Simeon: Rabbi

Yishmael, the vanguard of the notion that Torah study should be combined with a

profession, is said to have told his own nephew to study Torah full–time, while Rabbi

Simeon bar Yohai, the vanguard of the notion that all of Israel should rely on the

miraculous support of others and study full–time, is said to have allowed most Jews

to fulfill their obligation to study by reciting the Shema.

x

Sugya 3: ‘‘Wine’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:1, the blessing over wine is unique and distinct

from the blessing over grapes and other fruit. This sugya asks why wine is differentfrom olive oil in this regard, since both are regarded as an improvement over the fruit

from which they are derived in its natural state. Mar Zutra is said to have suggested

either that only wine has nutritional value or that only wine is filling; the Talmud’s

conclusion is that oil also has nutritional value, and bread, too, is filling, but wine is

unique in that it is both filling and gladdening of the heart. After having established

that wine has all the qualities of bread and more, the Talmud asks why only bread,

and not wine, is followed by the full grace after meals; the Talmud concludes that

although wine is filling, it is not generally considered the staple of the meal. In a

conversation with Rav Nahman bar Isaac, Rava concludes that even if an individual

were to build a meal around wine, rather than bread, until Elijah the Prophet comes

and rules on the issue, blessings must be determined by general rather than individual

practice.

Analysis indicates that this sugya post–dates the next two sugyot, which wereavailable to the editor of our sugya in their final form and current position in thechapter. Our editor was disturbed by an apparent contradiction between those two

sugyot: sugya 4 concludes that olive oil is unhealthy, and rarely drunk at all in amanner that necessitates a blessing, while according to sugya 5 olive oil is the optimalstate of the olive, and hence retains the blessing of the olive, ha’etz, as opposed toflour, which is merely an interim state on the way from wheat to bread, and is

therefore demoted in its blessing from ha’adamah to the less distinctive shehakol. Howcan olive oil be considered at one and the same time unhealthy, and on the other hand

the optimal state of the olive? Moreover, why do wine and bread, the optimal states of

grapes and wheat respectively, merit a more distinctive blessing than the produce

from which they are derived, while olive oil merely retains the blessing of the olive?These considerations led our editor to the following conclusions: the optimal state of a

particular item of produce and the degree of enjoyment derived from its consumption

are two different things. Olive oil is unhealthy when drunk in a manner necessitating

a blessing, yet financially it is the optimal state of the olive because of other uses;

hence it is not demoted in its blessing from ha’etz to the less distinctive shehakol. Onthe other hand, it is also not promoted to the level of wine and bread, which merit

unique blessings, because unique blessings are bestowed only upon produce in its

optimal state which also provides the highest degree of enjoyment – namely, that it is

‘‘filling’’, in the words of Mar Zutra. It is further shown that in Mar Zutra’s Aramaic

the verbs zayin and sa’id both meant ‘‘filling’’; by the time the sugya was edited,however, zayin came to mean nutritious rather than filling, a change attested in anumber of Talmudic passages, hence Mar Zutra’s statement was emended.

Analysis further indicates that the sugya post–dates Mar Zutra, a late amora; thepassage at the end recording a conversation between Rav Nahman bar Isaac and Rava

originally formed a part of sugya 33 below. The editor of our sugya transferred thematerial to the end of our sugya, bestowing new meaning on the term qava’ se’udah alhayayin. This term originally referred to drinking wine before and after the bread thatis usually considered the staple of the meal, but in its new context it refers to building

a meal around wine alone, without any bread.

xi

Sugya 4: ‘‘Olive Oil’’

This sugya opens with a statement variously attributed to the amoraim Samuel andRabbi Yohanan, cited in the previous sugya as well, according to which the blessing onolive oil is ha’etz. The author of the sugya is puzzled by the circumstances under whichone would drink olive oil, and after considering a number of possibilities, concludes

that the statement refers to a case in which a person suffering from sore throat drinks

olive oil mixed with chard broth rather than gargling with olive oil, the normal

remedy. Although normally no blessing at all is recited over medicine, since the olive

oil is ingested in a manner that provides nourishment, one does recite a blessing.

Analysis indicates that this largely anonymous sugya is relatively early; it predatesthe amora Rava and the development of the surrounding sugyot. The original intentionof the amoraic statement cited at the beginning of the sugya was to contrast olive oilwith wine, mentioned in the mishnah as the only fruit drink that engenders a blessingof its own – olive oil, by contrast, retains the blessing of the olive itself. This is the role

the statement plays in the parallel in Yerushalmi Berakhot 6:1 (10a). The editor of the

parallel sugya in the Yerushalmi is not bothered by the question raised in our sugya,since, as pointed out by Aryeh Leib Yellin in his commentary Yefeh Einaim,Palestinian halakhah automatically deemed the seven species to be the primarycomponent of a dish in which they are served along with other foods; thus even a

vegetable salad dressed with olive oil would engender the blessing ha’etz because ofthe olive oil. The editor of our sugya, however, followed the Babylonian position,according to which primary and secondary components of a dish are determined by

their actual status, rather than the importance of the blessing made over them, and

therefore concluded that the amoraic statement referred only to olive oil drunk alongwith chard broth by those suffering from sore throat.

Sugya 5: ‘‘Flour’’

This sugya opens with a dispute between two Babylonian amoraim, Rav Yehudahand Rav Nahman, as to the blessing recited over flour. Some commentators found it

hard to believe that the reference is to actual flour which is not usually eaten raw, and

interpreted the ‘‘flour’’ in our sugya as wheat kernels that are first roasted and thenground into flour. However, the sugya is best explained if we assume the reference isto actual flour. Rav Yehudah, in accordance with the plain meaning of Mishnah

Berakhot 6:1, assumes that any vegetable product other than bread – including flour –

retains the blessing ha’adamah. Rav Nahman says that the blessing is shehakol. Hisview is explained by the editor of the sugya as follows: since flour is an interimproduct that has not reached its ultimate state, it represents a temporary reduction of

the status of the wheat, with a concomitant demotion of the blessing to shehakol.

Analysis indicates that Rav Nahman’s view is part of an amoraic trend to enhancethe repertoire of blessings beyond that of the Mishnah. According to the Mishnah,

fresh produce and all foods derived from fresh produce – with the exception of wine

and bread – engender either the blessing ha’etz or the blessing ha’adamah. Theamoraim expanded the use of the shehakol and mezonot blessings beyond their limitedtannaitic usage to include many foods derived from grains and other produce. The

roots of this expanded repertoire can be traced to the view of the tanna Rabbi Judah,who envisioned a larger repertoire of blessings than that ultimately included in the

Mishnah of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch. While the law was formally decided in favor of

the limited repertoire in the Mishnah, this was gradually expanded by the amoraim.

xii

Sugya 6: ‘‘Palm Fiber’’

This sugya opens with a dispute between two Babylonian amoraim, Rav Yehudahand Samuel, as to the blessing recited over edible fibers that grow out of the top of the

palm tree, which over time become part of the palm bark. Since they are edible, Rav

Yehudah views them as peri ha’etz, a type of ‘‘fruit’’ of the palm; Samuel, on the otherhand, demotes their blessing to shehakol since they will ultimately become inediblebark. Samuel concedes to Rav Yehudah because of the analogy of radish, whose

blessing is ha’adamah despite the fact that it ultimately hardens to an inedible texture,but a later editor critiques this analogy using the term velo hi, since palm fibers, unlikeradishes, are a mere incidental by–product of the palm tree, and not the reason for

which the tree was planted. This later editor rules in accordance with Samuel’s

original view, that shehakol is recited over palm fiber. In the sugya’s current form, thelater editor’s critique of Samuel’s concession is interrupted by a baraita and astatement of the amora Rav Nahman bar Isaac concerning capers. Scholars have notedthat this is problematic both in terms of content and in terms of redactional history.

A parallel sugya is found in Bavli Eruvin 28b. Analysis indicates that Samuel’schange of heart was originally based on the analogy of capers rather than radishes.

The baraita regarding capers originally followed directly upon Samuel’s statement toRav Yehudah, and was meant to explain Samuel’s analogy. Rav Nahman bar Isaac

challenged the analogy and ruled in support of Samuel’s original view, that the

shehakol blessing is recited over palm fiber. Rava, unaware of Samuel’s change ofheart, cited the original dispute between Samuel and Rav Yehudah in the parallel in

Bavli Eruvin 28b. A later editor noted the contradiction between the two sugyot, andadded the velo hi critique of Samuel’s concession to the Eruvin sugya, basing himselfon the critique of Rav Nahman bar Isaac in the Berakhot sugya. In the final stage, thelater editor’s critique was transferred to Berakhot, where it was fused with the original

amoraic ending, engendering the current awkward discussion.

Sugya 7: ‘‘Caper’’

This lengthy sugya concerns the buds and berries of the caper plant, mentioned inthe previous sugya. It consists of five parts: (1) a statement of Rav, according to whichonly the berry of the caper plant, and not its bud (the part we now eat pickled), is

actually considered the fruit of the plant and is liable to the laws of orlah in thediaspora; (2) a challenge to that view based on the baraita cited in the previous sugya,which equates the bud with the berry, and an ensuing discussion delineating two

tannaitic views of the caper bud; (3) a discussion between Ravina and Mar bar RavAshi, in which the latter acts in accordance with Rav’s view and the former challenges

him; (4) a further challenge to Rav’s view, repeatedly defended by Rava; and (5) a

closing statement ruling like Mar bar Rav Ashi, and applying his reasoning to the

laws of blessing; viz., that the blessing over the caper bud is ha’adamah, not ha’etz asthe baraita would have it.

It has long been suggested that part (5) is a geonic addition to the Talmudic text,

and Avraham Weiss argues that part (3) is likewise a later addition. Both of these

views are challenged in the commentary, where it is argued that sections (1–3) and (5)

are all essential components of the original sugya, compiled by students of Mar barRav Ashi. Part (4), by contrast, is a remnant of a Babylonan sugya to Mishnah Maasrot4:6, parallel to the sugya found in Yerushalmi Maasrot 4:4 (51c). It was incorporatedinto the sugya at a later date by an editor who was troubled by the fact that the

xiii

original Berakhot sugya did not deal with what he considered the essential questionregarding caper buds, viz. whether or not they are considered protection for the fruit,and therefore subject to the same laws as fruit in accordance with the rabbinic

interpretation of Leviticus 19:23.

Sugya 8: ‘‘Peppercorns’’

This sugya opens with an amoraic dispute as to the blessing over peppercorns;according to Rav Sheshet they engender the blessing shehakol, while according toRava they are inedible, and therefore, if eaten, do not require a blessing. Similarly,

Rava is said to have exempted one who eats peppercorns or ginger on Yom Kippur

from liability. The editor of the sugya explains that Rava was referring only to driedpeppercorns and ginger; in their fresh forms they are edible, and engender the

blessings ha’etz and ha’adamah respectively.

A parallel sugya is found in Bavli Yoma 81b. As Avraham Weiss proved on thebasis of textual evidence, the sections of the sugya concerning peppercorns are originalin Berakhot, while those concerning ginger are original in Yoma. The two sugyot werefused at a later date, and not all textual witnesses reflect this final stage of the editorial

process.

Sugya 9: ‘‘Porridge’’

This sugya opens with an amoraic dispute as to the blessing over two types ofporridge, diyasa and havits qederah, which is shehakol according to Rav Yehudah andmezonot according to Rav Kahana. The editor of the sugya limits the dispute toporridge containing honey (havits qederah or diyasa that is like havits qederah): RavKahana considers the grain the main ingredient, while Rav Yehudah considers the

honey the main ingredient. Rav Yosef rules in accordance with Rav Kahana, since Rav

and Samuel required the mezonot blessing for any food containing the five types ofgrain: wheat, barley, rye, shibbolet shu’al – often translated ‘‘oats’’ – and spelt.

Analysis yields new definitions of the types of porridge mentioned in the sugya:havits qederah refers to boiled breadcrumbs, to which honey was usually added.Diyasa is porridge made by boiling semida, the biblical solet, which is not, as usuallytranslated, fine flour, but coarsely ground wheat groats. If honey is added to this

porridge, it becomes ‘‘diyasa that is like havits qederah’’.

Sugya 10: ‘‘Mezonot’’

This sugya opens with two statements attributed to both Rav and Samuel:according to one, only foods containing one of the five types of grain engender theblessing mezonot; according to the other, all foods containing one of the five types ofgrain engender the blessing mezonot (even if grain is not the main ingredient in termsof quantity). The statement which limits the blessing to the five types of grain is said

to exclude rice and millet; and is challenged on the basis of a number of baraitot,according to which rice and/or millet are viewed as types of grains and/or engender

the blessing mezonot. Attempts to attribute these baraitot to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri –who, according to the Bavli, did indeed consider rice and millet grain – are ultimately

refuted, and the statement of Rav and Samuel limiting the blessing to the five types of

grain is rejected: rice, like grain, is said to engender the blessing mezonot.

Analysis yields the following conclusions: (1) the blessing mezonot is tannaitic inorigin. It was originally limited to boiled bread and boiled rice bread; but was later

xiv

interpreted and expanded by Rav and Samuel to include porridge and any cooked

foodstuff consisting mostly of grain, in which the grain loses its form. (2) Only the

statement limiting the blessing mezonot to the five types of grain is correctly presentedby the Bavli as a view shared by Rav and Samuel; the statement requiring the blessing

over any food containing even a minority portion of grain is the view of Samuel

alone – Rav limited the mezonot blessing to foodstuffs consisting mostly of grain. (3)The similarity between the two statements led to confusion between them on the part

of later amoraim, who attributed both to both Rav and Samuel. (4) According toPalestinian sources, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri expanded the list of grains to include a

grass known as qarmit (mannagrass, glyceria fluitens), and this only on the basis of anexperiment he conducted which proved that dough made of flour from this grass

rises; it is the Bavli that expanded his ruling to include the grain–like substances rice

and millet, common in Babylonia.

Sugya 11: ‘‘Wheat’’

This sugya distinguishes between two tannaitic views of the blessing recited beforechewing wheat kernels; according to a baraita cited in the previous sugya, the blessingis ha’adamah; according to another baraita, it is bore mine zera’im. The latter view isattributed to Rabbi Yehudah, another example of whose expanded system of

blessings – bore mine desha’im on green vegetables – is mentioned in MishnahBerakhot 6:1.

Analysis indicates that Rabbi Yehudah’s view is not his alone. The expanded

system of blessings, according to which different types of produce engender different

blessings, was standard among tannaim of his generation. The simplified system ofblessings, according to which the two blessing ha’etz and ha’adamah are used for allproduce, whether eaten in its natural state or processed, was introduced in the

following generation by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, and while these blessings became

standard for natural produce, the amoraim soon expanded the system by adopting theblessings mezonot and shehakol for much processed produce.

Sugya 12: ‘‘Rice’’

This sugya opens with contradictory baraitot concerning the blessing recited aftereating rice: according to one source it is the abridged grace after meals (berakhah ahatme’ein shalosh), while according to another no blessing is recited. Rav Sheshetproposes that the first baraita reflects the view of Rabban Gamliel, but his solution isrefuted, and the sugya concludes that the first baraitamust be emended to read like thesecond.

Two alternatives to the Bavli’s emendation are proposed in the commentary. The

first proposal is that the first baraita reflects a hitherto unknown tannaitic position; thesecond is that the first baraita originally read berakhah ahat rather than berakhah ahatme’ein shalosh, and this referred not to the abridged grace, but to the bore nefashotblessing, recited after rice according to later authorities.

Sugya 13: ‘‘Gruel’’

According to the version of this sugya found in most manuscripts and in theprinted editions, Rava at first distinguished between farmer’s gruel, consisting mainly

of flour, over which he ordained the mezonot blessing, and the gruel of Mehoza,consisting mainly of honey, over which he ordained the shehakol blessing. Later, in the

xv

wake of the view of Rav and Samuel according to which foodstuffs containing any

quantity of grain engender the blessing mezonot, he changed his mind and ordainedthe blessing mezonot over both types of gruel.

In the Paris and Oxford manuscripts the second view is attributed not to Rava

himself after a change of heart, but to a later editor of the sugya, who rejects Rava’sview in the wake of Rav and Samuel’s statement with the formula velo hi. Analysisindicates that the reading of the Paris and Oxford manuscripts is original. As we have

seen above, the view here attributed to Rav and Samuel is in fact that of Samuel alone,

and Rava ruled like Rav. The editor’s comment reflects the view of later amoraim thatRav actually agreed with Samuel on this point.

Sugya 14: ‘‘Breadcrumbs’’

In this sugya amoraim dispute the blessing over breadcrumbs: Rav Yosef maintainsthat the blessing ismezonot unless the pieces are bigger than an olive, in which case theblessing is hamotzi, while Rav Sheshet maintains that the blessing is hamotzi in anycase. According to Rava, the blessing is hamotzi only if the breadcrumbs have theappearance of bread. Rav Yosef’s view, presented first, is said to be based on the meal

offerings in the temple, which were crumbled into large pieces and engendered the

blessing hamotzi. This view is subjected to a number of challenges from baraitotregarding meal offerings, after which it is determined that even smaller breadcrumbs

engender the hamotzi blessing if taken from a single, large loaf and/or pressedtogether into a loaf–like form.

Analysis indicates that the components of the sugya have not been preserved intheir original order. Rav Sheshet and Rava’s views originally followed immediately

after that of Rav Yosef, and the challenges to Rav Yosef’s position were originally

directed against Rava’s view, that hamotzi is recited only over bread that has ‘‘theappearance of bread’’. While this view is now often interpreted to mean that the

breadcrumbs or slices must be big enough to be identifiable as bread, the original

meaning was that the bread has the ‘‘appearance of a loaf of bread’’. Twointerpretations of this concept are offered in the sugya: either it means that thebreadcrumbs are now molded into a loaf–like shape, or that the bread from which the

crumbs were taken originally had a loaf–like shape (and was not baked in long strips

meant to be crumbled; see sugya 15 below). While the former explanation is rejected inthe Talmud in favor of the latter, it is the former that corresponds with our

interpretation of Rava’s view in sugya 20 below, that hamotzi is only recited over a fullloaf before it is broken. In this sugya he modifies that view slightly, and allows for therecitation of hamotzi over a pudding–type loaf reconstructed from breadcrumbs aswell, in order to explain the fact that meal offerings were crumbled before being eaten

and nonetheless engendered the blessing hamotzi.

Sugya 15: ‘‘Griddle Bread’’

This sugya concerns various bread–like foods, whose status is in dispute: someaccount them bread, and require that the hallah–offering be separated from theirdough, while others exempt them from hallah. The blessing over some of these foodsis in dispute: it is either hamotzi or mezonot. Mar Zutra is said to have ‘‘established hismeal’’ on these foods, over which he recited the blessing hamotzi, and on Passover allagree that these types of bread can be used as matzah.

xvi

In addition to the disputes explicit in the sugya, divergent readings have beenpreserved regarding a number of rulings in the sugya, engendering some confusion indetermining the halakhah. Moreover, the Talmud itself cites various views as to theidentity of the foods mentioned in the sugya; the Talmudic explanations arethemselves obscure and subject to various interpretations. These readings and

explanations are analyzed in the commentary. On the basis of parallel passages in the

Yerushalmi and philological analysis, it is determined that most of the sugya isreferring to bread ‘‘baked’’ on a griddle held over an open fire, rather than in an oven,

and bread baked in the oven in long strips meant to be broken up into breadcrumbs or

croutons. Griddle bread, served in the Middle East as a dessert, is variously referred to

as sufganin (the Moroccan sfinge, sponge–bread), troqnin or troqta or trita or targima(from the Greek trokta or trogalia or trogema, ‘‘dessert’’, all of which derive from theGreek word for ‘‘chew’’, because in the Greek world dessert consisted mainly of dried

fruit and nuts). These were sometimes baked on a griddle placed in the hot sun

without any fire whatsoever, according to Yerushalmi Hallah 1:5 (57d) and Bavli

Pesahim 37a, hence they are also referred to in our sugya as kuka de’ara’a (earth loaf, socalled because it is baked in the open rather than in an oven), and gubla be’alma, ‘‘meredough’’, i.e. barely–baked dough. According to Yerushalmi Hallah and Bavli

Pesahim, the status of sun–baked bread is the subject of an amoraic dispute; hencethe various views and readings in our sugya. Mar Zutra’s view has been interpreted asthough he ate a particularly large quantity of this type of bread in order to make the

blessing hamotzi over it; in fact, however, the Talmud merely noted that Mar Zutraconsidered this food bread, recited hamotzi over it, and often ate it instead of bread.

Sugya 16: ‘‘Date Syrup’’

This sugya contrasts the blessing over date syrup (devash temarim) with that overmashed dates (trimma); the former is said to be shehakol, since it is merely the ‘‘sweat’’of the date, while the latter is ha’etz, since the dates themselves are clearly present.

The commentary deals with the status of date syrup and the etymology of trimma.Analysis indicates that date syrup was considered mere ‘‘sweat’’ by those who did not

intentionally squeeze the juice out of the dates; they considered the juice that

accumulated outside the dates on its own a by–product. However, a significant

minority of the population intentionally extracted syrup (‘‘honey’’) from dates, and

thus Rabbi Eliezer considered date syrup to be a legitimate form of the fruit. Trimma isa Greek word, which originally referred to a sauce served with fish; one variety of this

sauce was made with cooked–down mulberries, and it later became a general term in

Greek for ‘‘sweets’’; hence its use in our sugya to refer to mashed fruit.

Sugya 17: ‘‘Shatita’’

This sugya begins with an amoraic dispute over the blessing on shatita, a drinkconsisting of water into which a powder of ground, baked wheat kernels is mixed:

Rav says the blessing is shehakol; Samuel says it is mezonot. According to Rav Hisda,they do not disagree: Rav was referring to a very dilute solution, used as medicine,

while Samuel was referring to a dense mixture, eaten as food. Even the dilute solution

used as a medicine is said to require some sort of blessing, because it has nutritional

value.

Analysis indicates that Rav and Samuel originally disputed the blessing over all

types of shatita, which consists mostly of water mixed with some wheat powder:

xvii

Samuel believed that even a minute quantity of grain is deemed the main component

of a food, while Rav believed that even where grain is concerned, the main component

is determined by quantity. However, as we have seen in sugya 10 above, later amoraimreinterpreted Rav’s position so that it conformed to that of Samuel, and our sugya isone example of this phenomenon. Two reasons for Rav’s exception to this rule in the

case of very dilute shatita are cited in our sugya: dilute shatita is a drink, not a food,and it is a medicinal remedy, not a food. Commentators are divided as to which of

these points is more important; Avraham Weiss sees the references to medicine as

later additions to the sugya, and cites certain manuscript evidence to this effect.However, without recourse to the notion that dilute shatita is medicinal, one would behard pressed to explain why liquefied grain should not engender themezonot blessing,and thus the view advanced in this commentary is that the medicine motif is an

original component of the sugya.

Sugya 18: ‘‘Motzi’’

This sugya opens with a baraita in which the formulation of the hamotzi blessing isdisputed: according to the Sages, the blessing over bread is ‘‘hamotzi lehem minha’aretz’’, while according to Rabbi Nehemiah the blessing is ‘‘motzi lehem minha’aretz’’ without the definite article ‘‘ha–’’. Rava, who believes the blessing should beformulated in the past tense (‘‘who brought forth bread from the earth’’) interprets the

difference between the two formulations as a question of tense; all agree that motzi ispast tense, but the Sages believed hamotzi to be past tense as well. A guest at RabbiZera’s house is also said to have preferred the motzi blessing, since it is acceptableaccording to all; however, Rabbi Zera, and the sugya itself, conclude that it is better totake a controversial stance, and say hamotzi, in order to demonstrate that the halakhahis in accordance with the Sages and not Rabbi Nehemiah.

Analysis indicates that there is actually no correlation between these formulations

and issues of tense; both refer poetically to the growth of grain as God’s bringing forth

grain from the earth in the past, in the present, and in the future. Rabbi Nehemiah’s

blessing is formulated by analogy to the ‘‘bore peri’’ blessings; he did not notice,however, that in those blessings ‘‘bore–’’ is automatically definite by virtue of its beingin a construct state with the definite ‘‘peri ha’etz’’. Because of the words ‘‘min ha’aretz’’,however, ‘‘lehem’’ in the blessing over bread is indefinite, and in order to make the

word ‘‘motzi’’ definite the article ‘‘ha–’’ must be added, as pointed out by the Sages.The Yerushalmi, however, understood the reference to ‘‘bringing forth bread from the

earth’’ literally, and believed it referred to a time when God miraculously made bread

grow on trees: either at the beginning of time or during the Messianic Era –

associating the former with ‘‘hamotzi’’ because God is famous as ‘‘the one who bringsforth...’’ and the latter with ‘‘motzi’’, because God is not yet known as ‘‘the one whobrings forth...’’, though he will indeed do so at some point. Rava preferred the motziformulation and ruled that even the Sages agree that this is acceptable. The editor of

the sugya interpreted Rava’s statement in light of the Yerushalmi and a similarstatement of Rava with regard to the blessing over the havdalah candle, yielding thegrammatically dubious explanations found in our sugya.

Sugya 19: ‘‘Cooked–down Vegetables’’

Mishnah Berakhot 6:1 implies that the blessing ha’adamah is recited overvegetables even if they are not in their natural state, and a number of Babylonian

xviii

amoraim cited in our sugya conclude on the basis of the mishnah that the blessing overshelaqot, defined in the commentary as vegetables cooked down into an unrecogniz-able mash, is still ha’adamah. Rabbi Yohanan, on the other hand, is said by mosttradents to have ruled that the blessing over such vegetables is shehakol, althoughaccording to an alternate tradition he, too, ruled that the blessing is ha’adamah. Thesugya consists of a number of attempts to mediate between the two views, associatethe dispute with similar tannaitic disputes, and ascertain which view is correct on the

basis of tannaitic sources. In the final analysis, the Babylonian sugya upholds the viewof Babylonian amoraim that the blessing over such vegetables is ha’adamah, and thesugya concludes with a number of rulings regarding various types of preparedvegetables that assumes that the blessing ha’adamah is retained.

The commentary deals with the individual components of this lengthy sugya andparallel material, as well as general questions concerning the development of the

halakhah on this issue as a whole. Among the more general conclusions reached in thecommentary are the following: (1) the traditions ascribing the Babylonian position to

Rabbi Yohanan are based on an erroneous inference from the parallel sugya inYerushalmi Berkahot 6:1 (10a). This sugya is analyzed in detail, and it is shown thatjust as the sugya in the Bavli sought by inference to attribute the Babylonian positionto Rabbi Yohanan, the Yerushalmi used similar methodology to ascribe the

Palestinian position, according to which the blessing over cooked–down vegetables

is shehakol, to the Babylonian amoraim Rav and Samuel. (2) The Babylonian position isbased upon Mishnah Berakhot 6:1. The Palestinian position can be explained in two

ways: on the one hand, it may be a rejection of the ruling in this mishnah in favor ofthe position of the tanna Rabbi Judah as cited in Yerushalmi Berakhot 6:2 (10b),‘‘Anyone who recites an unchanged blessing over a food changed from its natural

state has not fulfilled his obligation’’. Alternatively, it may be an expansion of the

ruling in Mishnah Berakhot 6:3 and related tannaitic material, according to whichshehakol is recited over food that has gone bad, if it is still edible – Rabbi Yohanan andhis colleagues may have viewed cooked–down vegetables as a deterioration of the

vegetables’ natural state. (3) Alternate explanations of the word shelaqot, according towhich the term refers to chopped vegetables in a marinade or steamed vegetables,

rather than cooked–down vegetables, are considered and rejected.

Sugya 20: ‘‘Dried Bread’’

This sugya contains a dispute between amoraim regarding the blessing recited overdried bread served piecemeal in a cooked dish: Rav says the blessing is hamotzi; RabbiHiyya limits the hamotzi blessing to a full loaf of bread while it is being sliced; andaccording to Rava, hamotzi is only recited over a full loaf of bread before it is sliced.The sugya ends with a clear ruling in favor of Rava’s position.

Virtually all commentators rejected the implication of our sugya that the blessingover sliced bread is not hamotzi. They determined that hamotzi is recited even oversliced bread, if that is all that is available. The commentators explain that the dispute

in the sugya only concerns a case in which there is a full loaf of bread on the table.Under these circumstances can the diner recite the hamotzi blessing over sliced breador croutons? A number of reasons for this radical reinterpretation of the sugya areoffered in the commentary: (1) the parallel in Yerushalmi Berakhot 6:1 (10a) clearly

refers only to a case in which a full loaf is available; (2) although the ruling in this

sugya is clearly in favor of Rava’s position, Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet in sugya 14

xix

above, and a number of amoraim at the end of our sugya, ruled like Rav, that onerecites hamotzi even over bread served piecemeal. (3) the conclusion of the editor ofsugya 14 above is that hamotzi is recited over any bread that came from a full loaf,whether or not it is still complete. (4) Alfasi seems to suggest that even in our sugya theruling in favor of Rava’s view refers not to his dispute with Rav over the blessing on

sliced bread, but to his dispute with Rabbi Hiyya over when to recite the hamotziblessing over a full loaf of bread.

Sugya 21: ‘‘Breaking Bread’’

This sugya concerns priority when a number of breads are served at once: all agreethat the foremost criterion is quality, and sliced wheat bread takes precedence over a

whole loaf of barley bread. As to sliced and whole bread of the same quality, Rav

Huna prefers that the blessing be recited over the slice, while Rabbi Yohanan prefers

the whole loaf. After an attempt to equate this dispute with a dispute about the

relative quality of a whole onion and a half onion available to be given as terumah isrejected, it is suggested that the slice be wrapped inside the whole loaf and the

blessing be recited over both. Moreover, Rav Papa insists that all agree that this is the

correct practice at the Passover seder, and Rabbi Abba insists that two whole loaves

be present when hamotzi is recited on the Sabbath. There follow a number ofstatements regarding the twin Sabbath loaves, which are best explained as a dispute

over whether both must be sliced and a discussion of this dispute.

Analysis indicates that the original dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi

Yohanan assumed that the blessing on the slice is mezonot and the blessing on thewhole loaf is hamotzi. The question therefore was not only one of priority but also ofwhether the mezonot blessing recited over the slice could exempt the whole loaf fromits hamotzi blessing. The suggested compromise enabled one to recite the hamotziblessing over a loaf and slice together, but then eat from the slice alone. Rav Papa

insists that this be done on Passover, when one would otherwise have recited the

blessing over a single broken matzah because it is the ‘‘bread of affliction’’ – in orderfor the blessing to be hamotzi rather than mezonot the single broken matza should bewrapped in a whole matzah (Iraqi matzot are soft and pliable to this day).

The implication of our sugya is that twin loaves were not used at all on festivals.However, some of the Geonim read our sugya as though Rabbi Abba required twinloaves on Passover, and explained that like on the Sabbath the manna did not fall on

festivals and a double portion was provided on the eve of the festival, although this is

not explicit in Scripture. The Tosafists adopted this view, in part because European

matzot were in any case too hard to wrap around the broken matzah, and two fullmatzot were required in order to fulfil the dictum of Rav Papa. Another Geonic view

maintained that Rabbi Abba insisted on two full matzot only when the seder was held

on Friday night. A third interpretation, adopted in the commentary, is that Rabbi

Abba was not referring to the Passover seder at all. Rabbi Abba’s ruling referred to

Sabbaths throughout the year, but on Passover he agreed with Rav Papa that one and

half matzot should be used, whether it falls on Friday night or on a weeknight, sincematzah is ‘‘the bread of affliction’’.

Sugya 22: ‘‘Take and Bless’’

This rather cryptic sugya consists of a list of statements made at a meal, followedby the rulings ‘‘he must bless’’ or ‘‘he need not bless’’. It has been universally

xx

explained as referring to statements made by a householder to those assembled at his

table after he recited the hamotzi and broke the bread but before he ate his own pieceand distributed the rest. ‘‘Take the blessed [bread]’’ is deemed pertinent to the

situation at hand and does not constitute an interruption requiring the assembled to

recite a second hamotzi blessing before eating; the question of whether ‘‘bring the salt,bring the condiment’’ and ‘‘feed the cows’’ are sufficiently pertinent is the subject of

two amoraic disputes.

The above cited interpretation of the sugya is rejected in the commentary on thebasis of a number of questions. Instead it is argued that the sugya refers to a case inwhich the householder recited the blessing and ate his piece, and upon distributing

the rest to the assembled issued various orders. Do these orders require them to make

their own individual blessings? The first case is one in which the host asked the

assembled to recite their own individual hamotzi blessings; all agree that they need notobey him since his blessing exempted them in any case. In the second case, he asks

that salt or condiment be brought before the assembled; amoraim dispute thesignificance of salt and condiment and question whether the assembled must recite

their own individual blessings once the salt and condiment are brought. In the third

case the householder asks one of the assembled to feed the cows – amoraim disputewhether this person must recite hamotzi upon returning to the meal. The implicationsof this interpretation and the traditional interpretation as far as the halakhic concept of

‘‘interruption’’ (hefseq, heseah hada’at) is concerned are discussed in the commentary.

Sugya 23: ‘‘Rava bar Samuel in the name of Rabbi Hiyya’’

This sugya consists of two interlocking units. The first is a collection of threestatements by Rava bar Samuel in the name of Rabbi Hiyya and discussions thereof.

According to the first statement, the householder may not recite hamotzi until salt orcondiment are served to all; various reasons for this are discussed in the commentary.

The last of the three statements concerns the nutritional value of water and salt; this

statement and the accompanying baraita also form the beginning of the second unit,which is a collection of statements concerning the nutritional properties of various

foods.

The material in this sugya is found only in the Bavli, although for the most part it ispresented in the form of baraitot and/or statements by Rabbi Hiyya and otherBabylonians who spent time in Eretz Israel toward the end of the tannaitic period. Itwould seem to be a collection of Babylonian folk traditions taught in Eretz Israel,

which made their way back to Babylonia in the form of baraitot and statements madein Eretz Israel by amoraim of Babylonian origin. Each is analyzed independently in thecommentary.

Sugya 24: ‘‘Bore Mine Desha’im’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:1, Rabbi Judah proposed the blessing bore minedesha’im over vegetables. This sugya consists of three statements, attributed by some toRabbi Zera and by others to Rabbi Hanina bar Papa: the first rules in accordance with

(or, according to the printed versions of the Talmud, against) Rabbi Judah, the second

offers a prooftext for Rabbi Judah’s view, Psalm 68:20, while the third asserts on the

basis of Exodus 15:26 that unlike people, God pours into a filled vessel rather than an

empty one: it is the person who hearkens unto God in one instance who has the

capacity to do so again.

xxi

The same collection is found in Bavli Sukkah 46a–b with reference to a similar

position of Rabbi Judah with regard to blessings recited before performing

commandments. Rabbi Judah’s position both in our mishnah and in the materialcited there is shown to be representative of the attitude of his generation to blessings

in general, while the position of the Sages or Rabbi Judah the Patriarch in both cases

reflects his attempt to simplify the system of blessings. The collection of statements by

Rabbi Zera or Rabbi Hanina bar Papa is original in Sukkah and was transferred here

by the editor of our chapter.

Sugya 25: ‘‘Root’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:2, if one inadvertently recited the blessing

ha’adamah over the fruit of a tree instead of the blessing ha’etz, he or she has fulfilledthe obligation. In our sugya Rav Nahman bar Isaac explains that this is the position ofthe tanna Rabbi Judah, who allowed a landowner to bring first fruits from a tree thathad been cut down, since the fruit is ultimately the product of the ground, which is

still in existence. This view is expressed by Rav Nahman bar Isaac with the words

iqqar ar’a hu, a phrase preserved in a number of textual variants.

Analysis yields the following conclusions: (1) the original meaning of the phrase

iqqar ar’a hu is that the root of the fruit is part of the ground; hence the fruit growsfrom the ground, not only from the trunk and branch of the tree. However, the word

iqqar was subsequently understood in its usual metaphorical sense, ‘‘essence’’, bysome, yielding variant readings. (2) Rav Nahman bar Isaac’s contention is actually

that of Rabbi Hezekiah in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aha in the parallel in

Yerushalmi Bikkurim 1:6 (64b); Rav Nahman bar Isaac heard this contention, adopted

it and expanded it in the next sugya, and both the original contention and theexpansion were attributed to him in the Bavli. (3) Rabbi Judah’s flexible position in

our sugya is analyzed in terms of his seemingly contradictory requirement that theblessing reflect the specific type of produce being eaten (see above, sugyot 5, 11 and24), and it is shown that there is in fact no contradiction.

Sugya 26: ‘‘Wheat is a Type of Tree’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:2, if one inadvertently recited the blessing ha’etzover produce that grows in the ground, instead of the blessing ha’adamah, he or shehas not fulfilled the obligation. While this should have been obvious, Rav Nahman

bar Isaac in this sugya says that the mishnah had to be explicit about this because ofRabbi Judah, who considered wheat a type of tree – in fact, he identified the tree of

knowledge of Genesis chapter 3 as ‘‘wheat’’. Nonetheless – concludes the editor of the

sugya – only trees whose branches remain intact after they are harvested can beconsidered trees for the purpose of the ha’etz blessing.

Analysis indicates that the tradition identifying the tree of knowledge as wheat

originally referred to a mythical tree on whose branches bread grew (see sugya 18above); it was Rav Nahman bar Isaac who interpreted the tradition to mean that

wheat itself is considered a tree. Other traditions with regard to the identification of

the tree of knowledge are likewise explored in the commentary in light of parallel

material. The distinction between trees and other flora proposed by the editor at the

end of our sugya is contrasted with the distinctions proposed in Yerushalmi Kilayim5:8 (30a), and variant readings of the Bavli’s distinction are discussed.

xxii

Sugya 27: ‘‘Formulation’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:2, if one inadvertently recited the shehakolblessing over produce, he or she has fulfilled the obligation. Discussion of whether

this ruling applies to wine and bread as well as produce (Rabbi Yohanan says it does;

Rav Huna says it does not) leads to a discussion of deviation from the prescribed

blessing in general: Rabbi Meir allows the individual to vary the precise wording of

the blessing, while Rabbi Yose does not. Rav is said to have approved of the short

Aramaic blessing ‘‘Blessed be the Master of this bread’’ formulated by a shepherd,

Benjamin, who did not know the prescribed blessing. After challenging this tradition

on a number of counts, the Talmud concludes that Benjamin’s blessing must have

included the words ‘‘the Merciful One’’, a name of God, since according to Rav

himself a blessing must include God’s name. Furthermore, Rav is said to have insisted

that Benjamin recite the three blessings of the Grace after meals.

Analysis, focusing on comparison of the sugya with the parallel in YerushalmiBerakhot 6:2 (10b), yields the following conclusions: (1) the common material is of

Babylonian origin, as the Yerushalmi itself acknowledges. (2) Rabbi Yohanan’s

position, found only in the Bavli, is not an actual statement of his; it is an expansion of

the implication of Mishnah Berakhot 6:7 and the stories cited in sugya 42 below, fromwhich the editor of our sugya concluded that Rabbi Yohanan and other Palestinianamoraim did not necessary accord bread a special status in the meal. (3) Benjamin theShepherd’s formulation was originally meant as a substitute for hamotzi; however, alater editor understood that it was meant as a substitute for the Grace after meals;

hence the questions and modifications at the end of the sugya. (4) This change in theunderstanding of the story can be attributed to a change in the usage of the verb

karakh (‘‘"wrap [bread]’’) when applied to a meal in Babylonian Aramaic. The phraseoriginally referred to the beginning of a meal, but later was understood in the more

general sense of ‘‘eat a meal’’. Hence when Benjamin is said to have ‘‘wrapped his

bread and blessed’’, it was originally clear that the reference was to a hamotzisubstitute. However, later readers assumed that he ate the meal first and then recited

his blessing. (5) Benjamin’s original blessing, even without the addition of ‘‘the

Merciful One’’, was deemed sufficient by Rav, since ‘‘Master’’ can be understood as a

name of God.

Sugya 28: ‘‘Name and Kingship’’

The previous sugya mentioned Rav’s position that a blessing must mention God’sname. Our sugya provides the original source for this contention; moreover, RabbiYohanan is said to have insisted additionally on mention of God’s kingship. Abaye

cites a tannaitic midrash halakhah as support for Rabbi Yohanan’s position.

Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:3 (12d) attributes the requirement to mention ‘‘kingship’’ to

Rav, rather than Rabbi Yohanan, and a textual variant of our sugya cited in Geonicliterature reverses the attributions to Rav and Rabbi Yohanan. Robert Brody has

suggested adopting this reading, and seeing the reference to the ‘‘Master’’ in Benjamin

the Shepherd’s blessing in the previous sugya as a reference to the kingship of God,rather than his name as suggested in the commentary to the previous sugya. This viewis considered and rejected in the commentary, where it is argued that neither Rav nor

Rabbi Yohanan required mention of God’s kingship in every blessing; this was a later

expansion of statements by each of them requiring mention of God’s kingship in

specific blessings. Rav, however, is the one who first required mentioning the name of

xxiii

God. In fact, this sugya was originally a direct continuation of the beginning of theprevious sugya, and Rav’s position was originally presented as a compromise betweenthe positions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah in the baraita cited there: strictconformity to the rabbinic formulation is not necessary, but nor does the person

reciting the blessing have free rein in formulation, but rather the blessing must contain

a name of God. If we combine this requirement with another statement of Rav, cited

in the Yerushalmi passage mentioned above, requiring the use of the word ‘‘attah’’,

Rav’s precise position becomes clear: a blessing must begin with the words ‘‘Blessed

art Thou, O Lord’’; after which the individual has freedom in formulating the blessing.

Sugya 29: ‘‘Truffles and Mushrooms’’

According to a baraita cited in our sugya, truffles and mushrooms do not growfrom the ground; therefore, their blessing is shehakol. This assertion is challenged inthe sugya on the basis of a baraita regarding vows, which states that truffles andmushrooms are considered prohibited by a vow renouncing all ‘‘growth of the

ground’’. Abaye explains that these fungi grow in the ground, but do not derive

nourishment from the ground. However, since both baraitot use the word gidul,‘‘growth’’, the editor of the sugya feels constrained to emend our baraita to read ‘‘donot derive nourishment from the ground’’, rather than ‘‘do not grow from the

ground’’.

Analysis focuses on comparison of our sugya with a parallel sugya in BavliNedarim 55b, where the baraita regarding vows is preserved in full. It is argued thatthe original locus of the contradiction posed between the baraitot and of Abaye’sinterpretation is Nedarim. Abaye’s interpretation is in keeping with the correct

meaning of the baraitot (though it does not seem to tally with modern scientificknowledge if taken literally; an issue discussed in the commentary). There is no need

to amend the baraitot, since the baraita regarding vows refers to fungi as ‘‘growth ofthe ground’’, whereas the baraita regarding the blessing maintains that fungi do notgrow ‘‘from the ground’’, i.e. are not nourished by it. This distinction is clear in light ofthe full citation of the baraita regarding vows. The suggested emendation originatedin our sugya, which cited the baraita regarding vows in an abridged form; a late editorwho had access only to the abridged baraita did not understand the distinctionbetween the two formulations with regard to growth and felt the need to emend one

of them.

Sugya 30: ‘‘Novelot’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:3, dates known as novelot engender the shehakolblessing according to the Sages, and engender no blessing at all according to Rabbi

Judah, since they are a ‘‘type of curse’’. Amoraim argue in our sugya about themeaning of novelot: some say the reference is to dates that fall off the tree because theyare overly ripe, while others say the reference is to unripe dates that are harvested

early for drying purposes, but are inedible until they are dried. Others say that this

amoraic dispute does not concern the word novelot in our mishnah, which all agreerefers to the latter, but to the term novelot temarah in Mishnah Demai 1:1. Variousproofs are cited for and against each view.

Analysis focuses on the relationship between the sugya and the material found inYerushalmi Demai 1:1 (21c–d). In keeping with a proposal of Avraham Weiss, it is

argued that the dispute in the sugya originated in connection with Mishnah Demai, as

xxiv

suggested in the latter half of the sugya. An early editor of our sugya thought thedispute could apply equally well to our mishnah; a later editor disagreed. The termikka de’amri, which occurs frequently in the sugya, is used by the second editor todistinguish between the first and second editorial layers.

Sugya 31: ‘‘Many Species’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:4, Rabbi Judah believes blessings recited over

the seven species mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:8 take precedence over blessings for

other foods served together with them, while the Sages believe one can choose to

recite the blessing over any of the foods served. The editor of our sugya assumed thatif the blessings are different, all agree that each of them must be recited; hence the

dispute in the mishnah does not concern the choice of blessing but only the order inwhich the foods are to be eaten and the blessings recited. Amoraic explanations of the

mishnah are interpreted by the editor of the sugya in accordance with this assumption:some amoraim believed the seven species must be eaten first whether the other foodshave the same blessing or different ones; others believed the seven species take

priority only if the other foods have the same blessing, and only one blessing is

required altogether. Similarly, amoraim dispute the question of whether there is anorder of priority in eating two or more species of the seven.

Analysis indicates that Rabbi Judah and the Sages actually disputed the question

of how to determine the main component of the meal, in light of the general rule

mentioned in Mishnah Berakhot 6:7, that if two or more foods are served together at a

meal, one recites a blessing over the primary component of the meal and exempts the

secondary component. The Bavli limited this rule to cases in which one food is clearly

served as side dish or condiment for the other; in other cases each food requires its

own blessing – hence the explanations of the mishnah in our sugya. The Yerushalmi,however, understood correctly that the tannaim required one blessing only over eachmeal or course; thus a ‘‘main component’’ must be established every time two or more

foods are served with different blessings. Rabbi Judah believed the seven species are

automatically the main component of any meal or course in which they are served; the

Sages, on the other hand, believed that if there is no clear ‘‘main component’’ one can

recite the blessing over whatever food one wishes to eat first. This distinction between

Babylonian and Palestinian halakhah is reflected in a number of sugyot in our chapter,and is mentioned in the Geonic compilation of differences between the halakhot of thetwo communities.

Sugya 32: ‘‘The Meal’’

This sugya deals with the status of fruit and other foods served during or at the endof a bread–based meal (a meal that begins with hamotzi and ends with the grace aftermeals), which are neither an essential component of the meal nor a secondary

component accompanying the essential component. A number of Babylonian amoraimrequired a separate blessing before fruit eaten during a meal, but not after it; Rav

Sheshet required separate blessings both before and after the fruit, and Rabbi Hiyya

required no blessing at all. Rav Papa distinguished between three cases: (1) essential

and secondary components of the meal are covered by the blessings before and after

the bread; (2) fruit, such as that mentioned above served during the meal, requires a

blessing beforehand but not afterwards; (3) desserts require separate blessings before

and afterwards, unless the dessert itself is bread (pat haba’ah bekissanin), in which case

xxv

it requires an additional hamotzi blessing beforehand, but the grace recited after themeal as a whole covers the dessert bread as well. The sugya effectively does away withboth aspects of Rav Papa’s ruling regarding desserts: First of all, his requirement to

recite an additional hamotzi blessing over dessert bread is said to be the opinion ofRabbi Mona, but Samuel and Rav Huna exempted dessert bread both from an

additional hamotzi blessing and an additional grace after meals; Rav Nahman offers acompromise, distinguishing between quantities of dessert bread eaten. Secondly, Rav

Papa’s requirement to recite blessings before and/or after eating desserts is said to

refer only to desserts eaten after the table is cleared away, or after the hands are

washed and/or perfumed for recitation of the grace; in other circumstances desserts

are considered an intregal component of the meal itself, and are ‘‘covered’’ by the

hamotzi blessing and the grace after meals.

Analysis indicates that this last view of dessert is actually that of Rabbi Yohanan

and the Palestinian halakhah; the editor of our sugya skillfully modified the originalBabylonian halakhot to conform to those of the land of Israel. This may also reflect achange in the manner in which dessert was served in Babylonia. In any case, the

discrepancy between the laws regarding dessert as summarized by Rav Papa and

those at the end of the sugya yielded a number of positions among the commentatorsand halakhic authorities as to the distinction between dessert and the main course.

These are surveyed in the commentary.

The summary of the sugya provided above assumes the definition of pat haba’ahbekissanin suggested in the commentary – it is regular bread served with dessert,usually in small loaves. This explanation (which seems to accord with that of the

Tosafist Rabbi Samson of Sens), assumes that this term has nothing to do with the

griddle cakes of sugya 15 above or other sweet breads, cakes and crackers. Thus thecommonly held notion, suggested by many authorities on the basis of Rav Nahman’s

position in our sugya, that such cakes occupy a middle ground between hamotzi andmezonot, and their blessing depends upon the quantity eaten, is unfounded. RavNahman was not dealing with cake or crackers eaten instead of bread, but rather with

a large quantity of plain bread eaten at dessert, during a meal which in any case began

with bread and ended with grace after meals.

Sugya 33: ‘‘Wine before the Meal’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:5, the blessing over wine drunk before the meal

covers wine drunk after the meal as well. In the first part of our sugya, this ruling islimited to Sabbaths, holidays and meals held after bathing and bloodletting, at which

it is customary to begin and end the meal with wine. Regular weekday meals,

however, normally opened with bread, and at such meals even if one were to drink

before the meal the blessing over such wine would not cover the wine drunk after the

meal. A dispute with regard to wine drunk during the weekday meal is brought in thesecond part of the sugya; some amoraim believed that it did cover wine drunk after themeal, while others believed it did not.

While traditionally commentators explained that the wine drunk after the meal in

question is dessert wine drunk before the recitation of grace, Joseph Tabory has

shown that the reference is actually to the cup of wine over which grace itself is

recited, which is drunk after grace. Our analysis adduces additional evidence for

Tabory’s position, and reconstructs the relationship between our sugya and theparallel in Yerushalmi Berakhot 6:5 (10c). In Eretz Israel, where the grace was recited

xxvi

over a cup of wine as a matter of course, no blessing was recited over that wine if wine

was drunk before or during the meal. In Babylonia, where wine was less common and

recitation of grace was not always accompanied by wine, grace was deemed a

distraction necessitating an additional blessing over the wine, unless one could be

certain in advance that wine would be brought for grace and one had in mind the

grace wine while drinking the aperitif. This was true in Babylonia on Sabbaths and

holidays only, at which time the mishnaic law was deemed applicable. Moreover, in

Babylonia much wine was served during meals following bathing and bloodletting,

including dessert wine preceding grace; this dessert wine, too, is covered by the

blessing over the aperitif according to our sugya and according to the views ofBabylonian amoraim cited in the Yerushalmi parallel.

Sugya 34: ‘‘Cooked Grain’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:5, the dominant view, attributed in the sugya tothe house of Hillel, is that the blessing over bread covers all other food served

alongside the bread, including cooked grain, but no blessing over other food covers

the bread. The house of Shammai disputes this, but its view is ambiguous, and two

interpretations are brought in our sugya. According to the first, the house of Shammaidid not believe the blessing over bread covered cooked grain or any other foodstuffs.

According to the second, the house of Shammai did not believe a blessing over

foodstuffs other than bread and cooked grain could cover cooked grain. In the Bavli

neither interpretation is deemed authoritative, but in the parallel in Yerushalmi

Berakhot 5:5 (10c), the first interpretation is preferred and the second is rejected.

Analysis indicates that the second interpretation is to be preferred, but both had

pervasive influence on a number of halakhic questions discussed in our chapter.

Sugya 35: ‘‘Let us Go and Eat’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:6, when a group of people recline together at

dinner, one recites the hamotzi blessing for all; if they eat sitting, each recites his ownblessing. This sugya contrasts the mishnah’s ruling with that of a baraita, according towhich each member of a group walking together recites his or her own hamotziblessing, while if they decide to sit down and eat one recites the blessing for all. Rav

Nahman bar Isaac equates a situation in which a group of people say ‘‘let’s go eat’’ to

a situation in which they recline, and the same resolution of the contradiction is

provided by ‘‘a certain old man’’ to Rav’s students, who faced this issue when they

stopped to eat on their walk home from Rav’s funeral.

In the commentary it is suggested that according to the tannaitic sources, the

blessing is recited by one person on behalf of all only if they are reclining at a formal

meal or stopping for a picnic while walking on the road together. Rav Nahman bar

Isaac expanded this ruling to include those who decide to eat together sitting down

indoors as well, because reclining at a formal meal was less common in amoraic times.

Analysis indicates that while the story of Rav’s pupils originally referred to the

hamotzi blessing, as described above, it was interpreted by some as referring to graceafter meals; hence Rav Nahman bar Isaac and the editor of our sugya felt the need torepeat the ruling of the old man with explicit reference to the hamotzi blessing.

xxvii

Sugya 36: ‘‘Reclining’’

According to Mishnah Berakhot 6:6, when a group of people recline together at

dinner, one recites the hamotzi blessing for all; if they eat sitting, each recites his ownblessing. In our sugya, Rabbi Yohanan extends this ruling to include the blessing overwine drunk before the meal as well. Rav disagrees. Two traditions regarding Rav’s

position are cited in the sugya: according to the first, one may recite the hagefenblessing for all even if they are not reclining, while according to the second, no

blessing other than hamotzi can be recited on behalf of others under anycircumstances. A baraita is cited in support of Rabbi Yohanan, according to whicheach diner recites his own blessing over wine served as an aperitif before entering the

dining room; but once reclining in the dining room one recites the blessing for all. The

Talmud provides somewhat forced explanations of the baraita according to each of thetraditions attributed to Rav.

Analysis indicates that the second version of Rav’s statement is the correct one;

moreover, it accurately reflects the original implication of the mishnah and ourreconstruction, on the basis of parallel material, of the original form of the baraitaquoted in our sugya as well: each individual must recite his own blessings over food,with the exception of hamotzi, which, under certain circumstances, one blesses for all.According to Rav’s original view as expressed in Pesahim 100b each individual must

recite his own hagefen blessing over qiddush wine as well. This position differed withSecond Temple practice, the view of the tanna Ben Zoma, the view of Rabbi Yohananin our sugya, and the view of later Babylonian amoraim influenced by Rabbi Yohanan,cited in Bavli Rosh Hashanah 29 a–b. Under the influence of this alternate conception

the first version of Rav’s statement was formulated in our sugya, the baraita quoted inour sugya was emended, and Rav’s position in Pesahim was reinterpreted.

Sugya 37: ‘‘Wine in the Course of the Meal’’

This sugya consists of a single baraita, according to which Ben Zoma explained thatthe individual recites his or her own blessing over wine served in the course of the

meal because of the danger of answering ‘‘amen’’ with a throat full of food. Analysis

indicates that Ben Zoma was asked about a widespread practice, not about our

mishnah, which was formulated later. Moreover, Ben Zoma’s explanation of thepractice is not the only possibility: as we have seen in the analysis of the last sugya,Rabbi Judah the Patriarch and his student Rav believed that one can recite the blessing

for all only in the case of hamotzi, and only under certain circumstances.

Sugya 38: ‘‘Called upon to Recite Grace’’

According to Mishnah Berkahot 6:6, ‘‘the aforementioned says [the blessing] on

the incense’’, referring according to most